Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Union-Tribune is scheduled to interview executives from Lockheed Martin on Wednesday about the the status of its first two littoral combat ships, Freedom and Fort Worth. Freedom is already stationed in San Diego. Forth Worth will be sent here after construction and early sea trials are completed.
...
If you have a question you'd like us to consider for Wednesday's meeting, email it to: gary.robbins@uniontrib.com.

How central to the LCS mission is the VTUAV/Firescout? How will it help LCS without a radar? Wouldn't a full complement of helos be more capable and flexible? How much of the LCS mission will be against seaborne threats, and how much against land targets of interest?

--------------------------------------1) Wouldn't it be better to redesign the vessel now that systems like the NLOS have been canceled for a more traditional vessel like the Absalom design.

2) How does the Navy and LM plan to justify the LCS when they have been shown to be so undermanned the crews are suffering from a crippling work load even without the mission moduals.

3) Does LM think it could have built a better design over all if the Navy had not had so many requirements (High speed, Extreme multiuse, Very low manning requirements, etc.) and demands from the design.

4) Can LM or the Navy truely justify the use of Griffon (a missile built for low cost and low impact with a very small range) to replace the NLOS missile system. As the vessel is would easily be out matched against any peir threat.-----------------------------------

I tried to make sure that they were atleast something LM had a hand in or on so they couldn't go "thats up to the Navy".

How long until you have sufficient Mission Modules forward based to be able to complete an active deployment with multiple changes in primary mission focus (Mine Warefare to ASW to Anti-Piracy) in any theater?

I got nothing. What questions will be seriously asked? And then seriously answered?

We have a thin skinned, over-weight, thirsty, cracking, rolling, muti-crewed-yet-under-manned, leaking, short-ranged, hyper-expensive, under-armed, under-armored, tempermental, semi-steath-dinghy-mothership where the irony is that the most reliable system on board *might*, just *might* be the Windows operating systems.

Not sure how much of that can be rolled into the "lead ship of class" meme but it would have been cheaper and still maintained a jobs program to inspect and replace as needed half the museum ships along our coasts. We killed the Spruance and killed/ nuetered OHPs for this?

What is the address the families of the crew can use for the class action suit when their loved ones die because your craft is not sea worthy and leaves them more vulnerable to attack than you claim?

Can families of dead servicepeople sue the manufacturer of a deathtrap vessel when they go forward with it despite well publicized and glaring deficiencies?

While there is an assumed risk when one enlists to serve in the military, does this ship as designed reach the level of gross negligence by the corporation that would make them responsible for mass casualties aboard?

Can personnel refuse to serve on this leaky vessel without fear of career damage?

<span>The muzzle velocity of the 100mm T-12 antitank cannon is around 1580 m/s. The speed of LCS at full throttle is roughly 23 m/s.

Assuming the LCS is moving directly away from the gun, from the time the gun fires at a range of 2,000m until the projectile impacts the LCS, the LCS will have moved approximately 29 meters. Delaying the impact all of 0.018 seconds.

If the LCS was built with a maximum speed of 35 knots, the impact of that cannon shell would be delayed only 0.0126 seconds.

Was all the expense and fragility built into the LCS to achieve that 50 knots worth the extra 0.0054 seconds? That is enough time for about one tenth of an eye blink. If you're sleepy.</span>

50 kts my pink Black/Scottish (diversity thoroughly embraced) a$$! It never did nor ever will reach those speeds. Besides that, who goes that fast in the littorals w/ the damned fishing fleet out there? Do our DC SWOs forget that the US Navy is almost ALWAYS the give way vessel out there?

Point being, LT B, that the difference between 50 knots, even as a theoretical speed, and 35 knots, which would have obviated the need to pour billions into this tub, makes not a whiff of difference against the weapon systems they will likely see in the littorals.

No arguement here, just pointing out that as you point out the lack of real defensive purpose in the 15 kt difference, I also point out the lack of seamanship realism. Additionally, all that "pixy dust" used to get it to 50 didn't work. So, we have a slightly faster, big visible target, lightly armed, gas guzzling, POS that is supposed to be the backbone of the Fleet. We (Big Navy) have made some bad decisions in the development, design and implementation of this beast and very few in DC are willing to be honest and say, "my bad," and cancel this or learn from this mistake and actually build us a real ship that we can man and equip to fight.

OT, I just saw the US denied Taiwaan the F-16s they have requested. A pity, they can use the upgraded aircraft to defend themselves from China, and Boeing could handle the influx of jobs.

you're right but not quite right. i had a physics teacher in college (obviously a budding liberal) that had us go through the following excercise.

a gun fires at a ship the shell travels x distance in y seconds of time, but the ship travels more distance in the time it takes the shell to get there. so you have to recalculate again for the additional distance, and on and on and on.

most people give up when they reach the spreadsheet limit of didgets after the decimal point. but when this idjit was in college he used the school main frame (took a whole weekend) to get out about a million points.

as a practical matter you are absolutely correct. you don't have time to hollar mother #$%^er. before you KYAGB.

there was an old naval saying to the effect that "a stern chase is a long one."

if we practice right size manning and have say 75 bodies on the ship at any one time thats one thing.

but the blue crew is 75 bodies and the gold crew is also 75 bodies.

doesn't this make a total manning of 150 people.

or is the off crew busy going to political correctness indoctrination (diversity training) on their half of the time.

and how are the personel attached to the modules to be attributed.

it appears that if they get very many of these things the personing problems are going to make a 15 shell shell game look simple.

it could be that the required number of personell will be about that of a like number of fletchers but 60% of those will be ashore at any one time. </span><span></span><span>and then there will be raids (pressganging) to take the of duty crew for "more important" duties. </span><span></span><span>which will lead to the on board crews "spinning their hats".</span>

Right, and your fathometers are not good at those high speeds. Going fast in shallow waters is not an excellent CONOPS. Good point, in reality, the PERSIAN GULF is far too small and dotted with drilling platforms to really safely do 35+ knots for an hour + of launching and recovering a/c ( depending upon wind, where the CVN commences ,etc ). This is all, in the final analysis, just about oil. So, let's get out of THE GULF once and for all. What a forsaken place, our warships cannot even dump garbage over the side. I vote we take VENEZULA which is nice and close and so many sailors and soldiers and marines already that language fluently. No more 6 to 12 months deployed to PERSIAN GULF. What an awful place.

They're sitting in Little Creek, VA waiting to cover up the orange stripe with haze gray paint after a hull refurbishment. The USCG is done with them, they're at the end of their design service life (15 years), and the USN is going through an extensive overhaul to make them last longer. What the PC's have to do with the LCS I don't know, but that's where the USCG PCs are.

Even LCS-1 completed all her Navy Trials in August-Sept. 2008 and then "steamed" down to Milwaukee to be commissioned and then departed Great Lakes before the long freeze set in. So, LCS-1 made it down to Norfolk by Christmas 2008. Yet USS FORT WORTH, LCS-3 can't depart Marinette Marine Shipyard for another 8.5 months ! Pitiful job, Lockheed and Navsea !!! Thanks for the fine job building LCS-3 on sked. Who will pay all the energy bills to keep the ice from crushing the hull of LCS-3 all winter long until the big thaw in April 2012 ? I guess LCS-3 certainly will be 'COMPLETE' (wink, wink...) by late APRIL 2012 !

Ya think ? What a shocking piece of LCS news. Even I'm stunned at this prolonged delay after all the PR about LCS-3 being on time, on budget, on quality. Thanks again Lockheed and Navsea.

hope the BLUE and GOLD crew's of LCS-3 enjoy very, very long, exceptionally cold WINTERS ! How do you train when ice-bound for 5 months ? Boring.

Not to mention, prolonged family separations. Even LCS-1 managed to sail out of the Great Lakes with the Secretary of Navy Winter riding aboard, prior to Christmastime in late 2008.

I can't wait to hear / read the many prevarications from Navsea and Lockheed about how this extra 8.5 months at the shipyard in Marinette was always planned all along, and saves a ton of money, and helps the BLUE and GOLD crews morale and their future re-enlistment rates.

This "news" has just got to be an error. Surely, the news of this delay is wrong. I hope.

Simulators, just like they train the various module operators. We don't need no stinkin' crew cohesion (apologies to Alfonso Bedoya).

On a more serious note, simulators are fine for knobology and some procedural stuff, where they certainly have there place, but I fail to see how one could develop an effective crew using simulators, alone. This is one of the things that really troubles me about LCS, as a concept, a lot of it revolves around assembling these scratch units to perform fairly complex and difficult tasks, such as mine warfare and ASW, when they work in concert with the core crew only rarely. Especially when the various mission module teams appear to be training in isolation from the rest of the crew. I also don't buy the McSailor "signlamanoperationsspecialistbosunmatehulltechnician" thing they've been pushing the last few years, seems like one ends up with a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none situation.

Personally, I see mission modules as better applied to speeding update and modernization of equipment, via not requiring major structural mods of the hull for upgrades, than the present concept. More in the vein of plug and play computer componants than the methodology of cutting gun mounts and so forth out of the ship when something newer comes along. I remain dubious about shipping things around the world to customize ships on the fly.

each crew has only 40 sailors to operate the ship. We have rack space for an additional 35 sailors for a total of 75 when on deployment. When we are steaming locally for testing or training we only go out with 40 crew. Our first deployment to the Carribean for drug ops, we deployed with almost 100 people using two berthing modules made out of a Conex box with each box holding 12 people. I was part of the pre-commissioning crew for Freedom LCS-1 and attached to her from 2006-2011.